Cargando…
Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis
OBJECTIVE: To contrast the effect of rebamipide with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs alone for the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD-) induced ulcers. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, the WanFang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) we...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539128/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33062694 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7196782 |
_version_ | 1783591001845137408 |
---|---|
author | Liu, Junyuan Xiong, Zhencheng Geng, Xuhua Cui, Meihua |
author_facet | Liu, Junyuan Xiong, Zhencheng Geng, Xuhua Cui, Meihua |
author_sort | Liu, Junyuan |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To contrast the effect of rebamipide with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs alone for the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD-) induced ulcers. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, the WanFang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were recognized, including 1170 patients. In general, rebamipide plus PPIs acted better than PPIs alone against ESD-induced ulcers at four weeks (RR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.13-1.78, P = 0.003) but showed no significant differences at eight weeks (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97-1.10, P = 0.315). The use of rebamipide plus PPIs was superior to PPIs alone for ESD-induced ulcers greater than 20 mm in size (20-40 mm: RR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.22-3.23, P = 0.006; >40 mm: RR = 5.14, 95% CI: 1.49-17.74, P = 0.010). In addition, rebamipide plus PPI therapy was discovered to be significantly more effective than PPIs alone for lower ESD-induced ulcers (RR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.04-3.20, P = 0.037). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with the ulcer reduction rate. CONCLUSION: Evidences now available show rebamipide plus PPIs is practical for protecting against ESD-induced ulcers at four weeks but not at eight weeks, especially large ulcers (>20 mm). However, we still need more high-quality RCTs in the future to supplement our conclusions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7539128 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75391282020-10-13 Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis Liu, Junyuan Xiong, Zhencheng Geng, Xuhua Cui, Meihua Biomed Res Int Research Article OBJECTIVE: To contrast the effect of rebamipide with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs alone for the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD-) induced ulcers. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, the WanFang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were recognized, including 1170 patients. In general, rebamipide plus PPIs acted better than PPIs alone against ESD-induced ulcers at four weeks (RR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.13-1.78, P = 0.003) but showed no significant differences at eight weeks (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97-1.10, P = 0.315). The use of rebamipide plus PPIs was superior to PPIs alone for ESD-induced ulcers greater than 20 mm in size (20-40 mm: RR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.22-3.23, P = 0.006; >40 mm: RR = 5.14, 95% CI: 1.49-17.74, P = 0.010). In addition, rebamipide plus PPI therapy was discovered to be significantly more effective than PPIs alone for lower ESD-induced ulcers (RR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.04-3.20, P = 0.037). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with the ulcer reduction rate. CONCLUSION: Evidences now available show rebamipide plus PPIs is practical for protecting against ESD-induced ulcers at four weeks but not at eight weeks, especially large ulcers (>20 mm). However, we still need more high-quality RCTs in the future to supplement our conclusions. Hindawi 2020-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7539128/ /pubmed/33062694 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7196782 Text en Copyright © 2020 Junyuan Liu et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Liu, Junyuan Xiong, Zhencheng Geng, Xuhua Cui, Meihua Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis |
title | Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis |
title_full | Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis |
title_short | Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis |
title_sort | rebamipide with proton pump inhibitors (ppis) versus ppis alone for the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcers: a meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539128/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33062694 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7196782 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liujunyuan rebamipidewithprotonpumpinhibitorsppisversusppisaloneforthetreatmentofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectioninducedulcersametaanalysis AT xiongzhencheng rebamipidewithprotonpumpinhibitorsppisversusppisaloneforthetreatmentofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectioninducedulcersametaanalysis AT gengxuhua rebamipidewithprotonpumpinhibitorsppisversusppisaloneforthetreatmentofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectioninducedulcersametaanalysis AT cuimeihua rebamipidewithprotonpumpinhibitorsppisversusppisaloneforthetreatmentofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectioninducedulcersametaanalysis |